Reply With Quote
Soooooo good president then?
Soooooo good president then?
Obama pooh-poohed the emphasis on enforcement only during the campaign, only to ramp it up once he got elected, and postpone the more comprehensive reform he seemed to endorse.
His base should be PO'ed, his kneejerk detractors, pleasantly surprised.
How do you extrapolate that?
There is already a clear ramp-up during the Bush years. Looking at non-criminal deportations, they went down in 2010.
Is catching and deporting more criminals a bad thing, in your view?
Why is that a bad thing, Darrin?
Please explain.
Not at all. However, the choice is pay for them in our jails, or deport them. Not very telling numbers for deportation. The telling numbers are those that are not deportations because of a 2nd or more crime committed.
I think that Darrin is trying to rub it in the faces of far left wingers that the guy they voted for is deporting illegals.
Unfortunately there are few very far left wingers here. There are those on the left who are active on this board, as well as those on the right. On certain issues some could even be considered far left wingers, but when taken as a whole, each person is likely just regular on the left. (BTW, I think that this is accurate for the right too, I feel that there are more far right wingers, but that could be because I am more sensitive to it.
It seems, thought, that he chose the wrong issue to rabble rouse about because no one here seems to be all that angry about it.
I have a question about this, an honest one, actually. If AZs law is modeled after federal law stating that you can't check immigration status without having a prior reason (commited a different crime, etc.) then how would they deport those who HAVEN'T commited a crime on top of their illegal immigration??
I heard on the radio that Obama wants to open the borders and let anybody in, and that he gives amnesty to child molestors and drug dealers
moot question--being illegal is the crime in AZ.
deporting doesn't work because
1. you can't deport 11M people, unless you go Nazi and use cattle cars.
2. with the borders remaining porous, they come right back (if they want to), having tasted a probably better life in US vs home country.
Apparently, it Rahm E. who's blocking immigration reform in the WH.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,1430441.story
I consider myself a far left winger..but I'm also a pragmatist/empiricist. I know that there will NEVER be a candidate that supports all my views, unless I ran myself.
But at the same time, I also know that some politicians need to compromise and that's part of our system. I can understand and respect that alot.
Yes crossing illegally is a crime, not just in AZ, but everywhere in the US. They cant, however, ask for your papers unless investigating for a different infraction, so back to my initial question. WC said that non-second crime (crossing illegally being the first) deportations have dropped in 2010, given how I understand the law, how is it possible to even check for immigration status Federally (or in AZ which mirrors that), if they aren't involved in a crime?
So you are saying that although you will fight for your far left ideals, you still can see the color gray, even if its just a little bit. I wouldn't (by my definition) consider you a left winger then. When I add winger to the end of a political description I see foaming at the mouth and completely unreasonable black and white extremists (though you couldnt have known my definition before now).
Also, before anyone jumps too hard on me here, I usually read spurstalk in a small window in the corner of my screen, and don't usually have usernames in view. So I will read and respond, but not have a clear idea of what poster is aligned where (except for the really really "infamous" and active ones).
But the AZ law makes mere presence in that State a crime, not neccessarily the illegal entry.
if an indivual is present in AZ "illegally," an officer can arrest and charge criminally that individual under the new law. in order for the law to be meaningful it has to be a crime that can be enforced independent of other criminal laws. IOW, if an officer has reasonable suspiscion or probable cause to believe that an individual is present in AZ "illegally," that officer has the legal right to detain and arrest that individual. The officer shouldn't have to wait for the individual to commit a seperate crime in order to approach and detain if he believes he is already witnessing a complete crime--illegal presence. Once that individual is detained, his legal status is pretty easy to ascertain.how is it possible to even check for immigration status .....in AZ...., if they aren't involved in a crime?
So, when good things happen it's leftover good juju from Bush and when bad things happen it's totally Obama's fault?
PS: I heard on Fox News that the Supreme Court already ruled years ago that law enforcement didn't even need "reasonable su ion" to ask for papers, yet the AZ law does and is somehow seen as stricter. Can someone confirm this?
So is darrins praising him? he ran away from this thread so i guess we'll never know.
I think most people (myself included) put a premium on deporting criminals at a higher rate than non-criminals. Just saying.
...and has actually enhanced the trade policies that continue to perpetuate the illegal immigration impetus. and then he and calderon continue on with the empty rhetoric about "reform".
It's Fox News, so I'm guessing they've interpreted the case law incorrectly.
The general consensus certainly seems to be that reasonable su ion is needed. You know, since the SCOTUS ruled that technically you don't even have to show your ID to a police officer, I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't rule that you police officers had the right to "request papers" without reasonable su ion.
If they are referring to the Hiibel case in Nevada, I believe that it allows law enforcement to ask for ID in an actual "stop" of a person who is suspected of criminal activity. I would leave it to a lawyer to discern if that includes the kind of contact described in the AZ law.
I am assuming that the OP here is just a troll, because if you read the fine print, the numbers are merely estimates of what will happen for the full year 2010 based on the numbers through FEBRUARY!!
So, there is nothing any of us can really know about criminal vs. non-criminal deportations until the data comes in.
Really, doesn't this just appear to be Darrin trying to get something going?...and succeeding?
Darrin probably thought he was yanking somebody's pigtails but he was just yanking off. We can have a conversation in spite of that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
